Gujarat High Court
Trent Group Cooperative Cotton Sale ... vs Director & 2 on 27 June, 2017
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/11100/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11100 of 2017
==========================================================
TRENT GROUP COOPERATIVE COTTON SALE GINNING & PRESSING
SOC. LTD.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIRECTOR & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 27/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner Society, by way of the present petition, has challenged the order dated 5.6.2017 passed by the respondent Authorized Officer rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner against the inclusion of the names of the respondent No.3 Society in the voters' list of the cooperative marketing society constituency under Section 11(1)(iii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") in respect of the election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mandal (hereinafter referred to as "the APMC, Mandal").
Page 1 of 5HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:17:27 IST 2017 C/SCA/11100/2017 ORDER
2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and is operating in the market area of APMC, Mandal. The election of APMC, Mandal was declared on 4.5.2017 as per the programme at Annexure-A. According to the petitioner, the APMC, Mandal had wrongly given licence to the respondent No.3 Society only with a view to create artificial majority, and therefore, the name of the respondent No.3 Society could not have been included in the voters' list for the cooperative marketing society constituency. However, in the preliminary voters' list declared by the authorized officer on 17.5.2017, the name of the respondent No.3 Society was included, and therefore, the petitioner Society had raised objection as per Annexure-B. The authorized officer rejected the said objection of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2017 and hence, the present petition has been filed. The petition has been resisted by the respective respondents by filing replies, to which the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder.
3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr.B.T. Rao for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 Society was given licence only with a view to create artificial majority. According to him, the respondent No.3 Society was situated at village Ukhlod, Taluka Viramgam, Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:17:27 IST 2017 C/SCA/11100/2017 ORDER District Ahmedabad, which is outside the market area under the APMC, Mandal, and therefore, could not be said to be the society situated in the market area as contemplated in Section 11(1)(iii) of the said Act. He also submitted that the authorized officer without any application of mind has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner society.
4. However, the learned AGP Mr.Venugopal Patel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner had never challenged the licence issued to the respondent No.3 and as per the auditor report produced before the authorized officer, the respondent No.3 society was holding the general licence and was engaged in the business in conformity with its objects and that the respondent No.3 society had its last accounts audited in Class-C.
5. Mr.Dipen Desai has also relied upon the decision of the Full Bench in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Co-operative Officer (Marketing), reported in 2006 GCD 211 (SCA No.2489 of 2005 dt. 27.4.2005) to submit that there being an alternative remedy available under the Rule 28 of the said Rules, the Court should not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. He also submitted that the exclusion or inclusion of the names in the voters' list can not be termed as Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:17:27 IST 2017 C/SCA/11100/2017 ORDER extraordinary circumstance and such question need to be decided in the election petition under Rule 28 of the said Rules.
6. In the instant case, it appears that the only objection raised by the petitioner Society against the inclusion of the respondent No.3 Society in the voters' list was that the respondent No.3 society was granted licence only keeping in mind the ensuing election of APMC, Mandal. The said objection as such had no substance. It is needless to say that the petitioner could have filed appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, challenging the said licence, however, that has not been done. Though Mr.Rao has submitted that the respondent No.3 society was not situated in the market area of Mandal, no such objection was raised before the authorized officer. As transpiring from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 society is holding general licence of APMC, Mandal and is situated in the market area carrying out activities of purchase and sale as per its objects and is having audit classification 'C'. The respondent authorized officer after having been satisfied about the fulfillment of the criteria laid down in Section 11(1)(c) has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner Society against the inclusion of the names of the respondent No.3 Society in the voters' list.
Page 4 of 5HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:17:27 IST 2017 C/SCA/11100/2017 ORDER
7. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocates for the respondents relying upon the decision of the Full Bench in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Co-operative Officer (Marketing) (supra) the exclusion or inclusion of the names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstance warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such question could be decided in an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.
8. In that view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) vinod Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Aug 18 08:17:27 IST 2017